The challenge for the ISO is to plant its other foot in that reality
by breaking with the Cliffite state capitalism theoretical tradition.
ISO rank and filers know the theory doesn't hold water, can't account
for what's happened in the former Soviet bloc, and poses obstacles for
comprehending and relating to struggles like the one in Venezuela and
defence of the Cuban workers state. Yeah, it's neat for appealing to
middle class college students but from what I hear, the youth they've
recruited are the 1st to know they must break out of the campus
ghetto. That takes more than an act of political will. It takes deeper
theoretical development.
Since the 1970s, the IS tendency in the US has done significant
pro-working class work. In the feminist movement and the CLUW
(Coalition of Labor Union Women) IS women were a significant presence
connecting womens' issues with class issues. The Campaign Against the
Death Penalty and their work in the Charleston dockers defense has
certainly brought them into contact with the oppressed minorities.
Louis Proyect noted a significant prescence of African-Americans at
the recent conference in NYC. I heard from people at the workshop on
the wrongfully convicted that African-Americans outnumbered white
participants. I agree partially with Joe-- to attract people like
myself the ISO must make a genuine break with the State Capitalist
tradition because it will keep them locked into a sectarian and
economistic methodology. --Ilyenkova
__________
The discussion over how to describe and name those countries that have
had socialist revolutions whether through internal revolution or
imposed partially or fully by occupation has gone on for dozens of
years. The Trotskyist movement had the struggle with Shachtman and
C.L.R. James and his co-thinkers, and then another over Eastern Europe,
and finally over the Cuban Revolution. In my opinion, there is no way
to replicate that discussion here. There is a shelf of books on the
question, perhaps two or three, even.
The same goes for gathering all the arguments among the Maoist
organizations that developed during the 60s and 70s, some of which
still exist. Perhaps some on this list can suggest the most important
of their contributions.
While in the Trotskyist movement, one thing that I got out the "workers
state" versus "bureaucratic collectivism" argument was that the essence
of the question was whether or not the property overturns had been
historically progressive and whether those overturns should be defended
against imperialism. Trotsky did not emphasize what it was called,
although he argued that the laws of motion in the Soviet Union were
distinctly different from that of capitalism and that the term
"bureaucratic collectivist" failed to describe any kind of state
whatsoever.
In the long run, Trotsky said that he would accept being in a minority
with those who chose "bureaucratic collectivism" as the "name" for the
soviet state, so long as his opponents still stood for defense of the
Soviet Union. (In fact, he said that he was willing to be in a minority
in any case, but this clearly would have been temporary. There would
have to have been a split.) Today the issue does not seem so burning
because the question for young people is whether or not you defend any
country against imperialism--which for people here means U.S.
imperialism. The ISO position does not interfere with that, even over
Cuba.
Personally, I have no quarrel with "state capitalism" as a name for the
system that developed in the USSR or China. Even Lenin, from time to
time, referred to the capitalist elements of the new soviet state. The
political and economic structures of the USSR and China and the other
"workers states" had to adapt to world imperialism. This led to the
immense drive to industrialize and the incredible distortion of their
economies in order to create a military force capable of defending
itself. The term "workers states" was never completely adequate to
describe backward planned economies operating in a world economy
developed by advanced capital with its immense advantage in
productivity, democratic structures, etc.
So using the phrase "state capitalist" does not offend me because I
still consider the political result to be progressive. 'O Romeo,
Romeo!' said she, 'wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father, and
refuse thy name, for my sake; or if thou wilt not, be but my sworn
love, and I no longer will be a Capulet.' To which Romeo replied, call
me Love.
You may object that the ISO's use of "state capitalist" also means that
it calls for the internal overthrow of the governments of soviet
states.
"There's the rub" to quote the useful Bard again. Yes, here is where I
would argue with the ISO as it applies to Cuba. I would suggest to
anyone working with the ISO or those who would join it, that this could
most effectively be argued when the discussion turns on the U.S./Cuban
conflict and not as an abstraction.
Brian Shannon